Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Warning/Ban Messages
  • Subject: Warning/Ban Messages
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: Yax
I agree. But, of course, a lengthier ban message is only required if it's clear the user doesn't know his/her way around the forums and needs directing.
It's rather the opposite. If you're banning a user who clearly does know their way around the forums, and it's quite clear they weren't being malicious, the first thing you should do is ask yourself what the -blam!- you're doing banning/warning them, and the second you should do is write a quite lengthy explanation of why you've taken action, because chances are that user knows their way around the site as well as anyone else, making detailed explanation all the more important if they're still managing to fall foul.
elmicker was spot on there. Exactly what I have been thinking for a long time now.

I could agree with you if by "senior" you mean "old and of failing memory". Then perhaps such patience, respect and hand-holding courtesy is required.

If by "senior" you mean "someone whose join date has two zeros in the year, then I respectfully disagree.

We're all big boys and girls, and if anyone "needs" additional information, explanation and encouragement to behave, it is the new members, not the established ones. If an long time member gets a warning and has a question, they damned sure know how to send a PM.

  • 07.12.2011 7:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Emporio Armani
Mods openly admit to rarely checking the reports que.

Link to source please?

  • 07.12.2011 7:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Quotation marks are usually indicative of quotation. You know better than most, Recon, that sending PMs to enquire about moderator action is about as productive a use of one's time as making a teapot out of the finest milk chocolate.

If a user, with no intended malice, despite being a productive and useful member of the site for years on end, still manages to fall foul of the rules, the rules and those responsible for administering them are at least as much at fault as the user in question.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:32 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:31 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

What he was saying is that an older member knows what they're doing. They know how the forum works and how its moderated... It's like kids knowing how far they can push their parents before they snap, but random kids coming into the house are going to get their arse kicked if they try anything similar.

Sort of thing...

  • 07.12.2011 7:31 AM PDT

Now selling HHDDVVDDBVDs. HD DVDs, but with better marketing.

You cannot complain about troll threads while asking that similar threads posted by "trusted" users be overlooked. Rules are rules. Selective judgement is why so many people complain about the American justice system. Millionaire scam artists get community service and small time crooks get 15 year sentences. Consistency is next to cleanliness.

  • 07.12.2011 7:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Skibur
What he was saying is that an older member knows what they're doing. They know how the forum works and how its moderated... It's like kids knowing how far they can push their parents before they snap, but random kids coming into the house are going to get their arse kicked if they try anything similar.

Sort of thing...

So you are asking for favoritism? Now I am more confused. You may have to explain it again and differently for this senior.

  • 07.12.2011 7:33 AM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.

Posted by: Skibur
Off topic.Here's a warning message that a member recieved recently.
If the warning/ban message is vague, then the warnee/banee isn't going to learn.
"Ok, next time I'll be on topic."

  • 07.12.2011 7:33 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Recon Number 54
So you are asking for favoritism? Now I am more confused. You may have to explain it again and differently for this senior.
Not favouritism, just understanding that older members have been here for a while and understand how the place works. We've seen people getting warned and banned for years and maybe even been warned and banned ourselves, so you can assume that we know where the line is.

That's why it's frustrating when new mods or mod practices or even attitudes come in and make the line all jagged.

Kind of thingy...

Ask elmicker :|

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:36 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Emporio Armani
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Emporio Armani
Mods openly admit to rarely checking the reports que.
Link to source please?
Denied. Source wishes to remain unnamed.

Unproven. Facts not in evidence. Hearsay. Inadmissible.

  • 07.12.2011 7:36 AM PDT

●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
Shadow's (Internet) Myths
●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
Steam Username: xxxZealot (Add me <3)
¤´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·`Shadow Legacy

Sent you the screen-caps Skibur.

  • 07.12.2011 7:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Telec
Remember kids: when Uncle Delta tells you he has sweeties, he isn't lying.

Now get in the van.


The Black Chapter


Posted by: Skibur
What he was saying is that an older member knows what they're doing. They know how the forum works and how its moderated... It's like kids knowing how far they can push their parents before they snap, but random kids coming into the house are going to get their arse kicked if they try anything similar.

Sort of thing...


No its not.
What Elmo is saying is that older users know how the rules work. What to do and what not to do, so when an older forum user breaks the rules in a way that was clearly without malice, its probably a fair thing to say that the rule they broke may well be as much to blame.

New members deserve leeway and education, and rule abiding members deserve an explanation.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:40 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:37 AM PDT

Now selling HHDDVVDDBVDs. HD DVDs, but with better marketing.

I like metaphors; they're kind of my thing.

Who should be more strictly punished: The young child who bites another child and knows no better, or the young adult who bites another young adult?

By your logic, we should be punishing the child instead of guiding them, and we should assume that biting is OK because the young adult has been alive for longer and knows where the societal line is.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:41 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:41 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Mythic brother, I have been banned recently for threads that were posted completely without malice. Do you think that helped my case at all?

  • 07.12.2011 7:41 AM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.

Posted by: Emporio Armani
Posted by: Emporio Armani
Mods openly admit to rarely checking the reports que.[/quote]
Link to source please?

Denied. Source wishes to remain unnamed.
Remind again what "openly admit" means, because I think we might have different definitions.

  • 07.12.2011 7:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Viva la VacheWho the -blam!- is malice?

  • 07.12.2011 7:42 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: ImTriForceGuy
Part of the problem with The Flood is mindset, they want to talk about what they want to talk about. They're not going to report threads on religion and stuff, because they want those threads, even if they're against the rules.

But I garentee if you post a shock-site (I'm not saying actually do it), the thread will be collapsed in less than a few minutes.
The mindset needs to change.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly okay if people don't report threads because they "want those threads". The report button shouldn't be used whenever somebody breaks a rule, it should be used when somebody breaks a rule and the individual wielding the report button believes it's detrimental to the community and worthy of punishment.

If somebody makes a thread that says "God rules!" or "Christians are stupid", anything along those lines, then by all means it should be reported. But if somebody makes a well-written, polite religious topic and nobody is flaming or anything like that, why not let it slip under the radar? If you think it is beneficial to community then don't report it. Join in (as long as you are aware you could be banned), have fun.

  • 07.12.2011 7:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Telec
Remember kids: when Uncle Delta tells you he has sweeties, he isn't lying.

Now get in the van.


The Black Chapter


Posted by: Skibur
Mythic brother, I have been banned recently for threads that were posted completely without malice. Do you think that helped my case at all?


Well its you Skibz, so of course not.
The crux of the matter is that malice should be the overriding factor.
Is this thread simply in the wrong place?
Is this thread offensive or is the posted a little bit 'slow'?
Is this thread clearly a troll attempt?

This may already be the case, I doubt any of us properly know the general trend of bannings and the reasoning behind most.

If its not, I believe you said before that its about educating and not all about punishment. Punishment breeds resentment, education breeds elmicker.

  • 07.12.2011 7:45 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This faith is my state.....otherwise Babylon.

In other thread; People claim that we learn from our ban histories, which is pretty ironic since we're only allowed to see the last infraction.

ITT: People claim the short to nonexistent explanations in warning/ban messages are fine.

Conclusion: Everyone is violating the rules on purpose so there's no need to explain to people what they did, they already know. Our histories are there to give the staff a reason to exclude people from a moderator discussion, this despite that they totally ignore it when it comes to F&F.

Also, there's never been a consistent "line", bar, threshold or whatever you wish to call it on this site.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:47 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:45 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No, delta, because they're rule enforcers, not moderators... They have to ban/warn based on the content against the rules.

I argued against this when I was a mod, but other mods disagreed.

Posted by: deltahalo UK
Punishment breeds resentment
I'll say... :/

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:47 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Recon Number 54
So you are asking for favoritism? Now I am more confused. You may have to explain it again and differently for this senior.
Not favouritism, just understanding that older members have been here for a while and understand how the place works. We've seen people getting warned and banned for years and maybe even been warned and banned ourselves, so you can assume that we know where the line is.

That's why it's frustrating when new mods or mod practices or even attitudes come in and make the line all jagged.

Kind of thingy...

Ask elmicker :|

I think that I understand better. Thank you for taking the time to explain rather than assuming that I was being intentionally thick and attempting to aggravate you.

This is the pickle, isn't it?

Consistency -vs- discretion and judgement
Predictability -vs- considering all factors (even unknowns)
Reliability -vs- flexibility
Equality -vs- elitism, favoritism, nepotism and all the other ugly "isms".

I can't ask that any member or any fellow ninja "follow my lead". They aren't me. I can't properly emulate anyone else for that same reason. I am not them.

Human interaction cannot be reduced to an equation and we don't have the numbers to attempt to create/use Psychohistory*. So, even when we ATTEMPT consistency, our results will be inconsistent. Which is why we will get a stream of "y u bant me?" PM's and now that the ban/warn history is visible (in part) to members, we will get these sorts of threads where the member (or someone else) puts an example up for open discussion and analysis.

I consider those (PM's and these threads) to be a check/balance mechanism. We moderators can learn and see what is thought of a specific incident, and members can learn and see how our thought process and actions occur.

Not a systematic resolution or a rewrite of the system, but a factor that allows for adjustment and correction. Not too bad if you ask me.


* Hari Seldon is/was/will be, a hack.

  • 07.12.2011 7:48 AM PDT

●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
Shadow's (Internet) Myths
●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
Steam Username: xxxZealot (Add me <3)
¤´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·`Shadow Legacy


Posted by: Skibur
No, delta, because they're rule enforcers, not moderators... They have to ban/warn based on the content against the rules.

I argued against this when I was a mod, but other mods disagreed.

Posted by: deltahalo UK
Punishment breeds resentment
I'll say... :/


Still, each ban should be properly explained. If every ban was properly explained there would be no need for arguments.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:49 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 7:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Telec
Remember kids: when Uncle Delta tells you he has sweeties, he isn't lying.

Now get in the van.


The Black Chapter


Posted by: Skibur
No, delta, because they're rule enforcers, not moderators... They have to ban/warn based on the content against the rules.

I argued against this when I was a mod, but other mods disagreed.

Posted by: deltahalo UK
Punishment breeds resentment
I'll say... :/


If they're 'rule enforcers', I'd argue that they shouldn't be posting at all.

  • 07.12.2011 7:49 AM PDT